Who's online

There is currently 1 user online.

aeroseth2k

Forum Question?

Submitted by Brett on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 17:51

Has anyone got any "sugestions" as to how low you would have to be to not sign someones court card at a meeting, I was thinking lower than snail slime but that still sounds a few rungs higher than what I'm searching for. Bare in mind this not signer is a 6 beer bingeing non-alcoholic that swills crab soup, & has never worked or lived in the real world anyway.

I've heard that many people who are court-ordered to go to the meetings don't even go. They just ask a bunch of friends of theirs to make up names and sign their slip. After all, it's anonymous, so there's no way to prove or disprove their attendance nor the authenticity of the signatures.

Why don't the "snail slime" people simply sign their own cards? They ended up mandated by the courts for breaking some law or other; it certainly wouldn't be beyond the scope for them the just sign their own cards and be done with it.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Many of those court-ordered to go to AA meetings DO sign their own cards with various different fictitious names and signatures or they have their friends sign them with fictitious names and signatures. Many of them don't go to the meetings at all. That's what I was saying. There's no way to force them to go because there's no way to verify their attendance based on the anonymity promised by AA. Some go to the meetings, I'm sure, but many don't.

Why doesn't Alcoholics Anonymous quit taking mandated violent criminals and sexual predators into their open arms.
AA activley promotes its business in the courts, jails and prisons. It is in AA's business model.
Oh, well let's think this through.
AA quits taking mandated criminals.
AA goes out of business.
Never mind becker. The reason AA takes criminals is obvious now, isn't it?

Penny.... I'm sure many want to be honest and go and others don't want to go, so they don't. I didn't say they ALL got signatures forged. Clearly there are many attending the meetings after being court-ordered to do so. Others don't go because there's no valid accountability since the meetings are anonymous. Probably just depends on the person.

Becket asks; Why don't the "snail slime" people simply sign their own cards?
JJ explains; It sounds easy enough but what if your PO has signatures from others who attended the same mtg? You never know. Either way you would be taking a big chance. If caught, im pretty sure that they would revoke your probation and send you to jail. I would not want to go in front of the same judge (and you would for sure) with that on me. He did give you a chance after all. That would be a bad day for anybody.

Is honesty the best policy here? Then why not have a soul-baring tete-a-tete with whomever it was who put the tacit screws to you to go to AA? I don't understand that part of your situation, which is so much different than most people's - you created a medical record for yourself which red-flagged you to employers, so you go to meetings to ensure your continued employment? Do I have that wrong? How does that arrangement justify itself? I'm not trying to be a jerk here; I'm just curious how you can live like that.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

I figure, hey, if you don't want the softer, gentler way, tell the judge you refuse to go to AA, and force him to make you go to jail for whatever crime he thinks that mandating you to AA is suitable. That wway, you don't have to worry about signatures at all. BEG the judge!

I don't know why AA and the courts are in bed together. I have nothing to do with that, besides holding the opinion that it is a ridiculous coupling that should be dismantled.
If AA quit taking mandates it would hardly collapse. Contrary to what you would like to believe, there are plenty of people who regularly attend AA meetings who do so of their own free will. So what is "obvious" to you is just more drivel to the non-AA-hating world. Try again.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

It is sort of like that. I won't go into much detail. Essentially, there is a public safety exception to the Americans With Disabilities Act. This means that I can be discriminated against based on my metal illness, i.e., chemical dependency. To show that I am better and not a danger, I have to follow a specific aftercare plan. Attendance at support meetings is one of the requirements of that aftercare plan. Believe me, I hate myself for going to treatment. I was stupid when I believed everything would be OK. I so wish I could take it back, and in the end I have no one to blame but myself. I've always been a straight shooter, and I'm not going to lie my way through life. But that doesn't mean I can't surf the web through meetings and call the billshit as I see it.

In another life you musta been a nazi, & there's nothing wrong with that, god knows I could happy send A.Aers to the gas chambers, but not signing a court card is a low & vile act. People who cage other people (fkn screws) are a sub species & people who "enable" (eg. court card not signers) them are a lower form of life still.
I'll bet your pious holier than tho gaze could turn an ocean into vinegar.

I don't think AA would disappear if it stopped taking mandates, but it would drastically change. My guess, and that is all it is, is that more than 50% of the people in the rooms would not be there if they were not coerced in one way or the other. A lot of meetings would disappear if there were no coercees, and the bigger meeting would reduce in size. Plus, I think a lot of the oldtimers would drop off without the constant supply of fresh prospects to preach to. Indeed, a lot of the true believers that I have seen suddenly stop coming back when they get off probation.

That's true. I'd be pissed if I had been forced, unless I screwed up. At least this way I know I am paying the price for my own decision, which I find comfort in. I still think it is a bunch of religious nonsense, though.

Fact, Judges do not ask convicted defendants whether or not they would prefer AA to jail. If one is going to jail, they are going to jail. Judge's also do not give defendant's a choice between jail & rehab. If it is a first or minor offense, defendants are sentenced to attend AA or NA or rehab. If it is a 2nd or further offense, defendants are sentenced to both jail & AA or NA. If it is a serious offense, defendant's are sentenced to jail. Parolee's & probationers are mandated, sentenced & told they must attend AA or NA, they do not discuss with the Parole & Probation department what works for them. Also, defendants do not discuss with a judge what works or doesn't work for them. If the offense warrants jail, a defendant is going to jail. This AA myth that AA or NA is a get out of jail card is just a myth, it is not the truth, AA not telling the truth, that's not something new or different. Judge's, parole & probation departments sentence offenders to AA or NA because there are no fee's & because it's there & it's a dumping ground to get said offenders out of their hair & to also cover their asses & jobs. That's all AA & NA represent to judges & parole & probation departments, they along with every one else know that AA & NA rarely work, they don't expect results, it's just a good spot to dump offenders. It's just not the truth that defendant's discuss with a judge or parole or probation department whether or not they get a choice between jail or AA or NA, this is a lie that AA & AA members have been & continue to tell for years & a long time. Just another common & every day lie that AA & it's members repeatedly lie about.

patti says: "If it is a first or minor offense, defendants are sentenced to attend AA or NA or rehab." Really? Seriously? Just another common & every day lie that AA haters repeatedly lie about.
patti says: "It's just not the truth that defendant's discuss with a judge or parole or probation department whether or not they get a choice between jail or AA or NA ...." Partially true. But you're forgetting about the two other major players in the scenario. Guess who?

The ADAAA did not make changes to the part of the ADA that excludes from coverage a person who currently engages in the illegal use of drugs when an employer acts on the basis of such use. However, the ADA also still says that a person who no longer engages in the illegal use of drugs may be an individual with a disability if he:
- has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully, or
- is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program ( e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous).